The People of the State of California v. BP P.L.C. et al, No. 3:2017cv06011 - Document 273 (N.D. Cal. 2018)
Court Description: ORDER GRANTING 271 STIPULATED REQUEST RE ROYAL DUTCH SHELL PLC'S MOTION TO DISMISS AND JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY by Judge William Alsup. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/6/2018)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
The People of the State of California v. BP P.L.C. et al 1 2 3 4 BARBARA J. PARKER, State Bar #069722 City Attorney One Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, 6th Floor Oakland, California 94612 Tel.: (510) 238-3601 Fax: (510) 238-6500 Email: ebernstein@oaklandcityattorney.org 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Attorney for Plaintiffs CITY OF OAKLAND and PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, acting by and through Oakland City Attorney BARBARA J. PARKER [Other Counsel Listed on Signature Page] DENNIS J. HERRERA, State Bar #139669 City Attorney City Hall, Room 234 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place San Francisco, California 94102-4602 Telephone: (415) 554-4748 Facsimile: (415) 554-4715 Email: matthew.goldberg@sfcityatty.org Attorney for Plaintiffs CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO and PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, acting by and through San Francisco City Attorney DENNIS J. HERRERA [Other Counsel Listed on Signature Page] Doc. 273 Jerome C. Roth (SBN 159483) Elizabeth A. Kim (SBN 295277) MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP 560 Mission Street Twenty-Seventh Floor San Francisco, California 94105-2907 Telephone: (415) 512-4000 Facsimile: (415) 512-4077 E-mail: jerome.roth@mto.com E-mail: elizabeth.kim@mto.com Daniel P. Collins (SBN 139164) MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP 350 South Grand Avenue Fiftieth Floor Los Angeles, California 90071-3426 Telephone: (213) 683-9100 Facsimile: (213) 687-3702 E-mail: daniel.collins@mto.com David C. Frederick (pro hac vice) Brendan J. Crimmins (pro hac vice) David K. Suska (pro hac vice) KELLOGG, HANSEN, TODD, FIGEL & FREDERICK, P.L.L.C. 1615 M Street, N.W., Suite 400 Washington, D.C. 20036 Telephone: (202) 326-7900 Facsimile: (202) 326-7999 E-mail: dfrederick@kellogghansen.com E-mail: bcrimmins@kellogghansen.com E-mail: dsuska@kellogghansen.com Attorneys for Defendant ROYAL DUTCH SHELL PLC 19 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 21 22 23 CITY OF OAKLAND and THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, acting by and through the Oakland City Attorney, 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiffs, v. BP P.L.C., CHEVRON CORP., CONOCOPHILLIPS, EXXON MOBIL CORP., ROYAL DUTCH SHELL PLC, and DOES 1 through 10, First Filed Case: Related Case: No. 3:17-CV-6011-WHA No. 3:17-CV-6012-WHA Case No. 3:17-cv-6011-WHA STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING ROYAL DUTCH SHELL PLC’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY Defendants. STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING MOTION TO DISMISS AND JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY NOS. 17-CV-6011-WHA AND 17-CV-6012-WHA Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO and THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, acting by and through the San Francisco City Attorney, 3 Plaintiffs, 4 v. 5 6 7 8 9 10 BP P.L.C., CHEVRON CORP., CONOCOPHILLIPS, EXXON MOBIL CORP., ROYAL DUTCH SHELL PLC, and DOES 1 through 10, Defendants. Case No. 3:17-cv-6012-WHA STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING ROYAL DUTCH SHELL PLC’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING MOTION TO DISMISS AND JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY NOS. 17-CV-6011-WHA AND 17-CV-6012-WHA 1 WHEREAS, on April 19, 2018, Defendant Royal Dutch Shell plc (“Royal Dutch Shell”) filed 2 a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ first amended complaints for lack of personal jurisdiction, insufficient 3 service of process, and failure to state a claim under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), 4 12(b)(5), and 12(b)(6) 1; 5 WHEREAS, on May 25, 2018, “[f]or the reasons stated on the record” at the hearing on May 6 24, 2018, the Court ordered “jurisdictional discovery” as to Royal Dutch Shell and certain other 7 Defendants, ordered discovery as to “whether Shell Oil Company is Royal Dutch Shell’s ‘general 8 manager’” for purposes of sufficiency of process, and ordered supplemental briefing on the relevant 9 motions to dismiss following the conclusion of that discovery2; 10 WHEREAS, Plaintiffs and Royal Dutch Shell will effectuate a waiver of service of summons 11 in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(d) that will moot Royal Dutch Shell’s motion 12 to dismiss for insufficient service of process under Rule 12(b)(5), thereby eliminating any need for 13 discovery in connection with the Rule 12(b)(5) issues; 14 WHEREAS, to avoid the delay, burden, and expense of jurisdictional discovery and 15 supplemental briefing, Royal Dutch Shell withdraws, for purposes of the above-captioned cases, the 16 portions of its motion to dismiss that gave rise to Plaintiffs’ request for jurisdictional discovery, and 17 Plaintiffs agree that, in light of this withdrawal, jurisdictional discovery and supplemental briefing are 18 no longer necessary; 19 WHEREAS, specifically, Royal Dutch Shell withdraws its arguments against specific 20 personal jurisdiction in Section I.B of its motion to dismiss other than those set forth in Section 21 I.B.3, 3 and Royal Dutch Shell also withdraws the Declaration of Linda Szymanski, which was not 22 cited or relied upon in Section I.B.3 4; 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 See ECF 222, 225, 17-cv-6011; ECF 186, 188, 17-cv-6012. See ECF 259, 17-cv-6011; ECF 217, 17-cv-6012. 3 Section I.B.3 is entitled, “Plaintiffs Cannot Show That Their Claims Arise From The Attenuated Jurisdictional Contacts Alleged In The Amended Complaints.” 4 Royal Dutch Shell therefore preserves, and continues to assert, the argument in Section I.B.3 (pp. 15-16) of Royal Dutch Shell’s Rule 12(b)(2) motion [ECF 222, 17-cv-6011; ECF 186, 17-cv6012] and in the associated portion of Royal Dutch Shell’s reply brief, viz., Section I.B. (pp. 6-9) [ECF 249, 17-cv-6011; ECF 209, 17-cv-6012]. 2 1 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING MOTION TO DISMISS AND JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY NOS. 17-CV-6011-WHA AND 17-CV-6012-WHA 1 WHEREAS, with the aforementioned withdrawal, there is no remaining portion of Royal 2 Dutch Shell’s motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(2) as to which Royal Dutch Shell is relying on any 3 declaration or other factual submission or as to which Plaintiffs are seeking discovery; 4 WHEREAS, Royal Dutch Shell’s remaining argument concerning specific personal 5 jurisdiction in Section I.B.3 is substantially analogous to the specific personal jurisdiction argument 6 advanced by Exxon Mobil Corporation, as to which discovery has not been ordered; 7 WHEREAS, Plaintiffs and Royal Dutch Shell agree that Royal Dutch Shell’s withdrawal of 8 certain of its arguments concerning specific personal jurisdiction in these cases shall have the same 9 effect as if Royal Dutch Shell had not made those arguments in its motion to dismiss, and that this 10 withdrawal is without prejudice to Royal Dutch Shell’s right to contest any issue concerning the 11 merits of Plaintiffs’ claims or Royal Dutch Shell’s right to contest personal jurisdiction in other cases. 12 13 14 NOW THEREFORE, Plaintiffs and Royal Dutch Shell HEREBY STIPULATE AND AGREE, subject to the approval and order of the Court, as follows: 1. For purposes of the above-captioned cases, Royal Dutch Shell withdraws its 15 arguments against specific personal jurisdiction in Section I.B of its motion to dismiss other than 16 those set forth in Section I.B.3, and Royal Dutch Shell also withdraws the Declaration of Linda 17 Szymanski, with the same effect as if those arguments had not been made and that evidence had not 18 been presented. 19 2. The only arguments Royal Dutch Shell continues to assert concerning specific 20 personal jurisdiction in the above-captioned cases are those in Section I.B.3 (pp. 15-16) of Royal 21 Dutch Shell’s Rule 12(b)(2) motion [ECF 222, 17-cv-6011; ECF 186, 17-cv-6012] and the associated 22 portion of Royal Dutch Shell’s reply brief, viz., Section I.B (pp. 6-9) [ECF 249, 17-cv-6011; ECF 23 209, 17-cv-6012]. 24 25 26 27 28 3. Because of this withdrawal, and because of Plaintiffs’ and Royal Dutch Shell’s intention to effectuate a waiver of service of process through Rule 4(d) in the above-captioned cases, Plaintiffs agree that their requests for discovery in connection with Royal Dutch Shell’s motion to dismiss are moot, and Plaintiffs will not serve jurisdictional discovery on Royal Dutch Shell. Royal Dutch Shell likewise will not serve jurisdictional discovery on Plaintiffs. 2 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING MOTION TO DISMISS AND JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY NOS. 17-CV-6011-WHA AND 17-CV-6012-WHA 1 4. Because of this stipulation, there is no need for jurisdictional discovery as to Royal 2 Dutch Shell or discovery as to “whether Shell Oil Company is Royal Dutch Shell’s ‘general 3 manager,’” and there is likewise no need for further supplemental briefing on Royal Dutch Shell’s 4 motion to dismiss. 5 6 IT IS SO STIPULATED. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Dated: June 5, 2018 **/s/ Erin Bernstein BARBARA J. PARKER, State Bar #069722 City Attorney MARIA BEE, State Bar #167716 Special Counsel ERIN BERNSTEIN, State Bar #231539 Supervising Deputy City Attorney MALIA MCPHERSON, State Bar #313918 Attorney One Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, 6th Floor Oakland, California 94612 Tel.: (510) 238-3601 Fax: (510) 238-6500 Email: ebernstein@oaklandcityattorney.org 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Attorneys for Plaintiffs CITY OF OAKLAND and PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, acting by and through Oakland City Attorney BARBARA J. PARKER ** Pursuant to Civ. L.R. 5-1(i)(3), the electronic filer has obtained approval from this signatory. Respectfully submitted, /s/ David C. Frederick Jerome C. Roth (SBN 159483) Elizabeth A. Kim (SBN 295277) MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP 560 Mission Street Twenty-Seventh Floor San Francisco, California 94105-2907 Telephone: (415) 512-4000 Facsimile: (415) 512-4077 E-mail: jerome.roth@mto.com E-mail: elizabeth.kim@mto.com Daniel P. Collins (SBN 139164) MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP 350 South Grand Avenue Fiftieth Floor Los Angeles, California 90071-3426 Telephone: (213) 683-9100 Facsimile: (213) 687-3702 E-mail: daniel.collins@mto.com David C. Frederick (pro hac vice) Brendan J. Crimmins (pro hac vice) David K. Suska (pro hac vice) KELLOGG, HANSEN, TODD, FIGEL & FREDERICK, P.L.L.C. 1615 M Street, N.W., Suite 400 Washington, D.C. 20036 Telephone: (202) 326-7900 Facsimile: (202) 326-7999 E-mail: dfrederick@kellogghansen.com E-mail: bcrimmins@kellogghansen.com E-mail: dsuska@kellogghansen.com Attorneys for Defendant Royal Dutch Shell plc 27 28 3 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING MOTION TO DISMISS AND JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY NOS. 17-CV-6011-WHA AND 17-CV-6012-WHA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 **/s/ Matthew D. Goldberg DENNIS J. HERRERA, State Bar #139669 City Attorney RONALD P. FLYNN, State Bar #184186 Chief Deputy City Attorney YVONNE R. MERÉ, State Bar #173594 Chief of Complex and Affirmative Litigation ROBB W. KAPLA, State Bar #238896 Deputy City Attorney MATTHEW D. GOLDBERG, State Bar #240776 Deputy City Attorney City Hall, Room 234 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place San Francisco, California 94102-4602 Telephone: (415) 554-4748 Facsimile: (415) 554-4715 Email: matthew.goldberg@sfcityatty.org Attorneys for Plaintiffs CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO and PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, acting by and through San Francisco City Attorney DENNIS J. HERRERA ** Pursuant to Civ. L.R. 5-1(i)(3), the electronic filer has obtained approval from this signatory. **/s/ Steve W. Berman STEVE W. BERMAN (pro hac vice) steve@hbsslaw.com HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1918 Eighth Ave. Suite 3300 Seattle, Washington 98101 Tel.: (206) 623-7292 Fax: (206) 623-0594 SHANA E. SCARLETT (State Bar #217895) HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202 Berkeley, California 94710 Tel.: (510) 725-3000 Fax: (510) 725-3001 27 28 4 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING MOTION TO DISMISS AND JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY NOS. 17-CV-6011-WHA AND 17-CV-6012-WHA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 MATTHEW F. PAWA (pro hac vice) mattp@hbsslaw.com BENJAMIN A. KRASS (pro hac vice) benk@hbsslaw.com HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1280 Centre Street, Suite 230 Newton Centre, Massachusetts 02459 Tel.: (617) 641-9550 Fax: (617) 641-9551 Of Counsel Attorneys for Plaintiffs ** Pursuant to Civ. L.R. 5-1(i)(3), the electronic filer has obtained approval from this signatory. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING MOTION TO DISMISS AND JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY NOS. 17-CV-6011-WHA AND 17-CV-6012-WHA [PROPOSED] ORDER 1 2 3 PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 5 June 6, 2018. Dated: _____________________ 6 7 8 9 _______________________________________ THE HONORABLE WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING MOTION TO DISMISS AND JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY NOS. 17-CV-6011-WHA AND 17-CV-6012-WHA
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
